Allahabad High Court
Vinod And Another vs State Of U.P. on 17 May, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:106966
Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5167 of 2023
Applicant :- Vinod And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anupam Shyam Dwivedi,Sudhir Dixit
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ekansh Varma
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Sudhir Dixit, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ekansh Verma, learned counsel for the informant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No.105 of 2023, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC at Police Station- Pilkhua, District Hapur with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, Shakuntala Devi, Madhu @ Mahendri and Seema are stated to have entered into an agreement to sale with the informant to sell the property in question with the informant on 03.02.2021, whereby there was a suit pending between them and the other persons. The informant is stated to have purchased the said land in-spite of the said suit being pending between the parties. The applicants are the marginal witness of the said agreement to sale. The informant has been duped of his hard earned money by the applicants in collusion with their aunts, namely, Shakuntala Devi, Madhu @ Mahendri and Seema.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are the marginal witness to the said agreement to sale and the agreement to sale categorically mention that there is a civil suit pending between the parties and the said sale deed shall be executed only after the final disposal of the said civil suit. Learned counsel has further stated that the main persons who had executed the said agreement to sale are Shakuntala Devi, Madhu @ Mahendri and Seema and the applicants are merely the marginal witness to it. The informant himself had subsequently purchased the said land from the title holder, thus the question of transfer of property does not arise. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicants. The co-accused person Raheesh Pal has been exonerated by the police and a closure report has been filed with respect to him. The investigation is going on with respect to the applicants and other co-accused persons. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the applicants had lost the case which they had filed as a civil suit in the year 2007 and subsequent to it they had not challenged it or filed any appeal rather they had filed another civil suit with respect to the title of the said land, which is not maintainable and is not a proper remedy to it. The said facts have come to light during a writ petition filed in this Court. The applicants have not come with clean hands.
7. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A., taking into consideration the fact that the matter is civil in nature and the applicants are only the marginal witness and not the persons who had executed the said agreement to sale, and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Vinod and Abhishek be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i). that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii). that the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
(iii). that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v). that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi). that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
9. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
(Krishan Pahal, J.)
Order Date :- 17.5.2023
Ravi Kant
